W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > July 2003

Re: Draft definition of WS

From: Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:39:52 -0700
Cc: "Cutler, Roger \(RogerCutler\)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, "Brian Connell" <brian@westglobal.com>, "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>
Message-Id: <FF0CFD3C-BEC6-11D7-9390-000393A3327C@fla.fujitsu.com>

While I quite like application-to-application, as that has been the 
focus of my work for the last xx years, I do believe that 
machine-to-machine is now part of the `vernacular'.

I also do not believe that this is worth losing any sleep over!
Frank

On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 10:04  AM, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:

>
> Why not replace "machine-to-machine" with "application-to-application"?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
> To: "Brian Connell" <brian@westglobal.com>; "David Booth" 
> <dbooth@w3.org>;
> <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 12:28 PM
> Subject: RE: Draft definition of WS
>
>
>>
>> The point is valid, but I think that just about everybody agrees that
>> the basic intention behind "designed to support machine-to-machine 
>> ..."
>> is extremely important.  That's essentially what separates Web 
>> services
>> from ugly things like screen scraping Web sites.
>>
>> I personally do not think that the current phrasing implies that it
>> can't be used on the same machine -- just that the common usage 
>> pattern
>> is different machines.  Recall, however, that I essentially brought up
>> the same point objecting to introducing the word "remote" into the
>> definition.
>>
>> I think that removing "machine-to-machine" altogether would be a very
>> bad idea, but some sort of recognition somewhere that interactions on
>> the same machine are "OK" would be useful.  I don't think that anybody
>> would object to a specific Web service implementation that, for some
>> good reason, was not actually exposed to other machines.  The 
>> potential
>> would exist, of course, to expose it -- one can just turn that off if
>> appropriate.
>>
>> Doesn't this sort of come under the security umbrella?  That is,
>> controlling the scope to which the service is exposed, with one 
>> extreme
>> being no network exposure whatsoever?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Connell [mailto:brian@westglobal.com]
>> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 10:43 AM
>> To: David Booth; www-ws-arch@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Draft definition of WS
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have an issue I would like to raise with the phrase
>> 'machine-to-machine'.
>>
>>> A Web service is a software system, designed to support
>>> machine-to-machine interaction over a network,
>>
>> This implies that a Web service is not designed to be used if the
>> software systems are interacting on the same machine (even using the
>> same processor).
>>
>> Can I suggest that we remove the 'machine-to-machine' term altogether,
>> or that we further qualify the word 'interaction' in a way that 
>> includes
>> software systems on the same 'machine'.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Brian Connell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 13:40:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:21 GMT